Scientism and Critiques of Science

[noddy]

some might say that claiming people who dont believe the same as you will suffer an *eternity* of hellish torture and red hot probes sets the standard of conversation to quite a low bar when it comes to this particular topic of ecumenical cross poking.

Well, that's simply evangelism, which should be familiar.

In history, there is never a permanent victor, rather only a never ending competition in the marketplace of ideas.

The Cult of Scientism is being very dishonest about it.

a self confessed conman and skeptic living on mafia money in vegas is somehow aligned with progressive scientism ??? .. besides the aggresive atheism, they hate him.

Penn Fraser Jillette (born March 5, 1955) is an American magician, juggler, comedian, musician, inventor, actor, filmmaker, television personality and best-selling author known for his work with fellow magician Teller as half of the team Penn & Teller. The duo have been featured in numerous stage and television shows such as Penn & Teller: Fool Us, and Penn & Teller: Bullshit, and are currently headlining in Las Vegas at The Rio. Jillette serves as the act's orator and raconteur.

He has published 8 books, including the New York Times Bestseller, God, No!: Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales. He is also known for his advocacy of atheism, scientific skepticism, the First Amendment, libertarianism, and free-market capitalism.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

How does he not align with it? He is aligned with it. There is amazing overlap between the Penn Jillette crowd (and before him the Amazin' Randi crowd) and the nu-atheist scienticism of the last 30 odd years.

It is in the same ballpark of evangelical beliefs and intelligent design.

That's no knock on Penn Teller or Amazin' Randi. But there is a whole social dynamic going on there.

Same thing with social democratic politics and superhero comicbook collectors.

[noddy]

the definitive work on computer programming that lifted it from the hackers and alchemists and into proper engineering is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_o ... rogramming

which was done by Donald Knuth who also happens to be a devout Lutheran, and has also done several books on that subject.

The Art of...The Art of...The Art of.......where have I heard that title before? And you say it is by a Donald Knuth?

Donald Trump, computer genius, confirmed.

hehehhe.

Knuth will pay people an error fee for every mistake found in his books, i doubt the other donald would put that level of ruthless detail into his musings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth_reward_check

[noddy]

How does he not align with it? He is aligned with it. There is amazing overlap between the Penn Jillette crowd (and before him the Amazin' Randi crowd) and the nu-atheist scienticism of the last 30 odd years.

It is in the same ballpark of evangelical beliefs and intelligent design.

well, only if you decide atheism is always scientism and anyone who is atheist automatically follows scientism.

whilst the aggresive atheism is the overlap, their is no furthur political connection , especially when it comes to parting Penn from his money or his guns or his rights to be a raconteur.

my view of scientism is far narrower than being atheist, or arguing for atheism, if thats the only criteria, then the conversation is pretty much a waste of time.

lumping all the atheists is like lumping all the religions, vaguely useful for a crude outsiders prejudice but hardly detailed enough for a sustained thought.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

the definitive work on computer programming that lifted it from the hackers and alchemists and into proper engineering is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_o ... rogramming

which was done by Donald Knuth who also happens to be a devout Lutheran, and has also done several books on that subject.

The Art of...The Art of...The Art of.......where have I heard that title before? And you say it is by a Donald Knuth?

Donald Trump, computer genius, confirmed.

hehehhe.

Knuth will pay people an error fee for every mistake found in his books, i doubt the other donald would put that level of ruthless detail into his musings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth_reward_check

No, a good businessman knows to keep his lies wide.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

How does he not align with it? He is aligned with it. There is amazing overlap between the Penn Jillette crowd (and before him the Amazin' Randi crowd) and the nu-atheist scienticism of the last 30 odd years.

It is in the same ballpark of evangelical beliefs and intelligent design.

well, only if you decide atheism is always scientism and anyone who is atheist automatically follows scientism.

whilst the aggresive atheism is the overlap, their is no furthur political connection , especially when it comes to parting Penn from his money or his guns or his rights to be a raconteur.

my view of scientism is far narrower than being atheist, or arguing for atheism, if thats the only criteria, then the conversation is pretty much a waste of time.

lumping all the atheists is like lumping all the religions, vaguely useful for a crude outsiders prejudice but hardly detailed enough for a sustained thought.

No, it's not atheism or aggressive atheism or any of that...

It's skepticism, the very kind which forms the backbone of western civilization. And it's the type is principally anticlerical, which has its own illustrious history as a sort of middle-way position/synthesis in a romanticism/scientism debate.

Penn Jillete is self-described atheist, one who is a very colorful character. More power to him but I don't think he speaks for anyone but himself in that regard.

What he did do with his partner (and following the Amazin' Randi) is take a marginal job with a long association with spiritualism/the "mystical"/anti-science (however you wanna put it) and flip it on its head and become mega rich in the process.

What he did (as opposed to what he says) tapped into something really interesting.

[noddy]

When it think of scientism, I do think of the young, nu atheist types but their is also a bunch of things that flow from that which leave plenty of atheists looking at them sideways.

things like

* belief science will cure death and create heaven on earth, without suffering.
* belief in a deterministic universe and intelligence being an illusion created by complexity.
* belief in statistics as guide to public morality

Im quite busy right now, so this will do for the moment.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

When I think of atheists/scientism, my mind goes to guys like Comte and Jules Ferry and Leo Strauss along with humanism...

[noddy]

How does he not align with it? He is aligned with it. There is amazing overlap between the Penn Jillette crowd (and before him the Amazin' Randi crowd) and the nu-atheist scienticism of the last 30 odd years.

It is in the same ballpark of evangelical beliefs and intelligent design.

well, only if you decide atheism is always scientism and anyone who is atheist automatically follows scientism.

whilst the aggresive atheism is the overlap, their is no furthur political connection , especially when it comes to parting Penn from his money or his guns or his rights to be a raconteur.

my view of scientism is far narrower than being atheist, or arguing for atheism, if thats the only criteria, then the conversation is pretty much a waste of time.

lumping all the atheists is like lumping all the religions, vaguely useful for a crude outsiders prejudice but hardly detailed enough for a sustained thought.

No, it's not atheism or aggressive atheism or any of that...

It's skepticism, the very kind which forms the backbone of western civilization. And it's the type is principally anticlerical, which has its own illustrious history as a sort of middle-way position/synthesis in a romanticism/scientism debate.

Penn Jillete is self-described atheist, one who is a very colorful character. I don't think he speaks for anyone but himself in that regard.

well, all the protestant strains , including the american evangelicals are also be part of the anticlerical, antiauthoritarian bent of american civilisation

id be struggling to put NDGT or Bill Nye into that train of thought... they come from another place altogether, somewhere far darker and more authoritarian.

this is my disagreement with the lumping.

[noddy]

What he did do with his partner (and following the Amazin' Randi) is take a marginal job with a long association with spiritualism/the "mystical"/anti-science (however you wanna put it) and flip it on its head and become mega rich in the process.

What he did (as opposed to what he says) tapped into something really interesting.

its a generational thing - older folks are far more likely to let himself believe in the mystical/spiratulism side of things, us cynical , post war types are more likely to want to see the mirrors and strings and find that more interesting than the thing being tricked.

it does represent a massive shift in the public psyche, not sure id lump that with scientism, though it is the environment from which it can rise.

[noddy]

When I think of atheists/scientism, my mind goes to guys like Comte and Jules Ferry and Leo Strauss along with humanism...

im mostly ignorant of Comte and Ferry.

humanism and its relationship to Protestantism is perhaps above my paygrade aswell - except that its obviously the next step in the authority rejection chain.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

When it think of scientism, I do think of the young, nu atheist types but their is also a bunch of things that flow from that which leave plenty of atheists looking at them sideways.

things like

* belief science will cure death and create heaven on earth, without suffering.
* belief in a deterministic universe and intelligence being an illusion created by complexity.
* belief in statistics as guide to public morality

Im quite busy right now, so this will do for the moment.

With that list, I think of the influence of computers...the cult of computers

[Simple Minded]

my view of scientism is far narrower than being atheist, or arguing for atheism, if thats the only criteria, then the conversation is pretty much a waste of time.

lumping all the atheists is like lumping all the religions, vaguely useful for a crude outsiders prejudice but hardly detailed enough for a sustained thought.

rigorous, specific standards? theists, atheists, magicians, comic book aficionados, computer geeks, scientists, scientismists.......

With the possible exceptions of whites and blacks, the only lumps we have not covered is heretics!

I think non-lumpers are heretics! nobody wants the non-lumpers in their tent.

What is this "sustained thought" stuff that you are advocating? Is that some type of new wacko fringe type religion? Good luck selling that in cyber-space....

[Simple Minded]

Penn Jillete is self-described atheist, one who is a very colorful character. More power to him but I don't think he speaks for anyone but himself in that regard.

Very true. Also true of all the religious types, atheists, whites, blacks, dems, repubs, etc. I have met in my life.

I am skeptical of all lumpers. Anyone who claims to speak for more than one person is usually delusional and/or lying.

[Typhoon]

Well, that's simply evangelism, which should be familiar.

In history, there is never a permanent victor, rather only a never ending competition in the marketplace of ideas.

The Cult of Scientism is being very dishonest about it.

Assertion.

[Typhoon]

How does he not align with it? He is aligned with it. There is amazing overlap between the Penn Jillette crowd (and before him the Amazin' Randi crowd) and the nu-atheist scienticism of the last 30 odd years.

It is in the same ballpark of evangelical beliefs and intelligent design.

well, only if you decide atheism is always scientism and anyone who is atheist automatically follows scientism.

whilst the aggresive atheism is the overlap, their is no furthur political connection , especially when it comes to parting Penn from his money or his guns or his rights to be a raconteur.

my view of scientism is far narrower than being atheist, or arguing for atheism, if thats the only criteria, then the conversation is pretty much a waste of time.

lumping all the atheists is like lumping all the religions, vaguely useful for a crude outsiders prejudice but hardly detailed enough for a sustained thought.

+1

[Typhoon]

There is a famous case wherein a scientist and a magician joined forces to expose a fraud in science.

A paper was submitted to Nature claiming that water had memory.

The memory of water

The editor of Nature, John Maddox, agreed to publish the paper on the condition that a team could investigate the procedure at the lab.

Along with scientists, Maddox brought in a magician, James Randi, the Amazing Randi, known for exposing fakes.

Randi spotted the fraud, put stricter protocols in place, and the claimed results could not be reproduced.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Maybe we should treat science more like sports. Sportscasters could rate the different schools and theories in each discipline. Off-track betting and awesome mascots.

As long as there are eye-candy cheerleaders and beer.

Gimme an E! Gimme an T! Gimme an O! Gimme an H!
What's that spell? BEER!

[Mr. Perfect]

well, only if you decide atheism is always scientism and anyone who is atheist automatically follows scientism.

Part of scientism is when you allude your personal opinions are science because they sound sciencey and yes you are an atheist. Penn and so many others qualify.

[Mr. Perfect]

When it think of scientism, I do think of the young, nu atheist types but their is also a bunch of things that flow from that which leave plenty of atheists looking at them sideways.

things like

* belief science will cure death and create heaven on earth, without suffering.
* belief in a deterministic universe and intelligence being an illusion created by complexity.
* belief in statistics as guide to public morality

Im quite busy right now, so this will do for the moment.

Scientism is when people try to pass off their personal views as science, on a number of bases. Such as having a degree (from the OP Neil Degrasse Tyson) or "supporting science" in general (from the OP Bill Maher).

Neither of these makes your personal opinions any more relevant or plausible.

Edit: the OP was changed.

This is scientism in pure form. A "scientist" and a "science fan" who give authority to whatever comes out of their mouths because one has a degree and the other is a fan (Bill Maher wouldn't be able to tell one end of the periodic table from the other).

sClOP52DAig

BTW one of the chief aims of scientism is promoting atheism as science.

[Mr. Perfect]

Well, that's simply evangelism, which should be familiar.

In history, there is never a permanent victor, rather only a never ending competition in the marketplace of ideas.

The Cult of Scientism is being very dishonest about it.

Assertion.

I already provided 2 examples and I could spend all day every day posting more.

[noddy]

well, only if you decide atheism is always scientism and anyone who is atheist automatically follows scientism.

Part of scientism is when you allude your personal opinions are science because they sound sciencey and yes you are an atheist. Penn and so many others qualify.

so...

without a thorough agreement on when idea turns into proposition turns into theory turns into a fact we are pretty much back to all atheists having opinions is scientism.


i seem to remember many pages of that argument happening already


id say the contrary argument to that is that in the modern world of many cultures and sub cultures it doesnt matter who you are or what you believe, unless you can explain it using secular humanism/science you are not able to converse with anyone outside your sect.

getting american evangelicals to care about what latin catholics believe is impossible, you dont care about the pope, let alone when you bring the rest of the non christians.

[noddy]

What is this "sustained thought" stuff that you are advocating? Is that some type of new wacko fringe type religion? Good luck selling that in cyber-space....

tis alright, i couldnt sustain the thought of thinking about it.

must be something like sustainability, in the eye of the beerholder.

[Mr. Perfect]

without a thorough agreement on when idea turns into proposition turns into theory turns into a fact we are pretty much back to all atheists having opinions is scientism.

Nah they will usually give some kind of signal.

i seem to remember many pages of that argument happening already

id say the contrary argument to that is that in the modern world of many cultures and sub cultures it doesnt matter who you are or what you believe, unless you can explain it using secular humanism/science you are not able to converse with anyone outside your sect.

getting american evangelicals to care about what latin catholics believe is impossible, you dont care about the pope, let alone when you bring the rest of the non christians.

What is interesting is that I would not have characterized you as an atheist or into scientism but you come to their defense quite readily.

[noddy]

well, im trying to find the definition of what "they" are to you, that requires questions in the grey areas.

Im not defending them, Im conversing with you - as i originally said i wouldnt have put someone like penn & teller into the scientism camp, only the aggresively atheist camp.

thusly, I wanted to know how your definition of scientism differed from mine.

NDGT, Bill Nye etc are definately in the scientism camp, authoritarian technocrats using agenda driven subsets of the latest statistics, confused about science as a tool versus science as a moral authority, they fit into your version and mine.


i grew up in a largely anglican environment so the difference between a deist and an agnostic is quite small to me, maybe that colours my perspective too much for american politics.